Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-11-01 Thread Mark Martinec
Alex, > > No, the DKIM_VERIFIED (or rather: DKIM_VALID, as it is now called) > Shouldn't then L_UNVERIFIED_GMAIL be updated to rely upon DKIM_VALID > instead of the deprecated DKIM_VERIFIED? Yes, definitely, if still in use. Where did you find it, it's not one of the stock rules. Probably posted

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-11-01 Thread Alex
Hi, >> Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are >> also rules that apparently depend on it: > > No, the DKIM_VERIFIED (or rather: DKIM_VALID, as it is now called) > (with a near-zero score) is valuable for two reasons: in combination > with other rules adds flexibility to

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Mark Martinec
Alex, (sorry for my previous post, sent prematurely) > Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are > also rules that apparently depend on it: No, the DKIM_VERIFIED (or rather: DKIM_VALID, as it is now called) (with a near-zero score) is valuable for two reasons: in combina

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Mark Martinec
Alex, Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are also rules that apparently depend on it: Oct 31 14:22:58.055 [2067] info: rules: meta test L_UNVERIFIED_GMAIL has dependency 'DKIM_VERIFIED' with a zero score It looks like perhaps it's there for legacy reasons? From 25_dki

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Benny Pedersen
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:54:10 -0400, Alex wrote:  whitelist_from_dkim *@bertolini-sales.com  auth.ccsend.com whitelist_from_dkim *@auth.ccsend.com I'd rather not whitelist all of auth.ccsend.com, but only as it relates to bertolini-sales.com, just as I wouldn't want to whitelist all of constan

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Ned Slider
On 31/10/11 19:54, Alex wrote: I'd rather not whitelist all of auth.ccsend.com, but only as it relates to bertolini-sales.com, just as I wouldn't want to whitelist all of constantcontact.com, or am I misunderstanding? Thanks again, Alex I'm not sure why you feel the need to whitelist these a

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Alex
Hi, >   Why does DKIM_VERIFIED have a zero score in 50_scores.cf? > > Anybody, including spammers, can do DKIM.  You could make have it > a small negative score like -0.5 or so. Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are also rules that apparently depend on it: Oct 31 14:

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Benny Pedersen
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:18:33 -0400, Alex wrote: whitelist_from_dkim *@in.constantcontact.com whitelist_from_dkim *@bertolini-sales.com whitelist_from_dkim *@auth.ccsend.com

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Jeff Mincy
From: Alex Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:18:33 -0400 I have a fedora15 system with sa-3.3.2 and amavisd-2.6.6 and would like to whitelist messages like these: Oct 31 11:19:42 mail02 amavis[3518]: (03518-01-20) SPAM-TAG, -> <50...@example.com>, No, score=-4.555 tagged_above=-1

Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-10-31 Thread Alex
Hi, I have a fedora15 system with sa-3.3.2 and amavisd-2.6.6 and would like to whitelist messages like these: Oct 31 11:19:42 mail02 amavis[3518]: (03518-01-20) SPAM-TAG, -> <50...@example.com>, No, score=-4.555 tagged_above=-100 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_RAT